tv [untitled] December 13, 2011 5:00am-5:30am PST
given the fact the group has presented you credible experts' opinion why at&t should not install it in this particular location. thank you. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> i wish to make a few comments regarding the construction of the church or mentioning. what i called an arc in previous comments to the board. the city invited representatives for an accounting in front of the world health organization. in another city the birth of christ was be held. sunshine ordinance. i included this packet of information i am going to give
you from the san francisco public library. the last thing i would like to do is read the bar code. something i created with the help of others. it is the english alphabet, a list of english characters and 26 empty boxes. a califon, b byrd, sea cat, the dog, e egg, f fish, g god, h heaven, i insect, l lion, m metal, omega o, p papyrus, q queen, r reptile. u union, v vegetation, w word, x, y yeast.
zed. thank you for your time. president chiu: thank you, next speaker. >> ♪ electricity in my lark captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- ♪ ♪ captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap ♪ electricity there will be even when we're gone ♪ and is about electricity, in larkin.
♪ forever ♪ ♪ ♪ forever there will be larkin street ♪ ♪ electricity ♪ president chiu: thank you, next speaker. any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant? seeing none,, at this time where do we go to the planning department. >> the evening. -- good evening. i am joined by the project planner. this is a condition use authorization for wireless telecommunication facility. at 2041 larkin street. i will cover for topics. the project description. the most preferred site in san
francisco. the city process. including how these preference locations were determined and the finding specific to this case and why they found it desirable and compatible. let's discuss the project. this is required to install the wts. we have six panel antennas that are installed within a sepal. these would be put in a steeple with -- by removing the existing screens and replacing them with radiofrequency transparent screens that would not -- with an additional equipment that would be installed that is not visible to the public. that is the wtf project. this is a preference one location. the city has preferred location
types. this is the most highly preferred site. public facilities by the most favored site and occur in every neighborhood. they give the opportunity for a cell phone reception. also the appearance of these sites are infrastructure related. they are most often compatible. this is not helpful pulled elvis discovered -- this was discovered. this is identified as a preferred site for establishing self-service in the residential district. antennas have been reviewed in this location for 15 years. under the city's adopted policy, this site is where cell phone
providers. let's review the process that determined this site should be a preferred location. the department and commission has had guidance in the installation of wireless facilities. in 1996, the board passed a resolution which provided input on locating wtf facilities. public and institutional settings in the city should be our top preference for wts facilities as they are least likely to be visually disruptive. this board resolution did seek further clarification on some of the lesser preference sides and in response in august of that year, the commission updated their guidelines and updated them again in 2003. the guidelines contained not only location preferences but also mandate when outrage meetings and site analysis are required and they require these
the middle of facility plans that must be either -- updated. that is the process that led to this site being the highest preferred site. other procedural review for facilities include the aesthetic review by our department and health review by the ph. when it comes to guidelines, they will be not visible. that is what has happened here. the antennas are screened and not discernible by the public. the appellant stated -- [no audio] when it comes to thhealth, limis were established. i will not go into this in detail. we have a city process which i have described before. the appellant stated they are not appealing these antennas due
to health concerns. i will not review that unless requested by the board. between the existing federal laws and regulations in the guidelines put in place by the board and commission, review is largely limited to aesthetic concerns. in addition, the project was satisfied sections 3 -- must satisfy section three. it is compatible with the neighborhood. that is the process these facilities go through. let's look at the fourth topic. in this instance, why did the commission find this project to be appropriate? in this case they met all the commissions criteria. looking at desirability and compatibility, it is important to upgrade the infrastructure to keep up with changing technology.
on the location, this was the number one most preferred site in the city. when it comes to siting, the antenna is indoors, not visible from the public right-of-way. the commission found it to be compatible. in the case of necessity, there are two criteria at play. coverage and capacity. in this case, at&t has reported the coverage gap in this area especially inside the building. the planning commission considered information project -- provided by the project sponsor and by the appellant and found evidence, fighting there was a gap in coverage to be compelling. on the capacity issue, the project sponsor of describe their capacity exceeding expectations.
the commission found it is necessary for san francisco to have adequate capacity and the commission found this proposed facility would fill gaps in coverage in the russian hill neighborhood and would provide necessary facilities for emergency transmissions in this area. lastly, the project was determined not to be detrimental to health, safety, or convenience. the department of public health found that would emit a radiofrequency that is well below fcc regulations. the exposure would be 2.9% of the allowable fcc limit. you have questions, the hearing is not the appropriate venue. this is to consider if the existing city law guidelines were properly administered in the authorization. in this case with the project cited in the most preferred
location, and the project that meets all the criteria outlined in the guidelines and the planning code, the project is approved by the planning commission. assets the department respectfully requests the board of polled its conditional use authorization. i am available for questions. president chiu: i have a couple of starter questions. the appellant in their presentation showed a map that the project sponsor laid out which suggests that there is a lot of coverage gaps, making it look like certain parts of brant county as opposed to san francisco. if you go to the website it suggests that there is excellent coverage in the neighborhood we're talking about. how do you resolve the discrepancy? >> in consultation with the planner, that information about at&t's coverage from their rooms i was not presented. president chiu: if you go to the corporate web site, it says
that the coverage is the best coverage possible. should that affect our decision? >> i suggest to use that in evidence in your decision. president chiu: the neighborhood association was not able to put together the resources to bring the experts testimony they submitted today. how should we consider that? >> can you restate that? >president chiu: we have testimony from two experts and analyze data and found it inconclusive whether there is a service gap. how should we consider this? is this evidence we should consider in our decision? >> yes. that is additional evidence that was not presented to the planning commission and is before this body for your consideration. president chiu: how should we consider the issues around structural building integrity and the bacon aspects of the building? there have been some code enforcement issues and police
activity in a mostly vacant building. how should we consider those issues? >> the structural issues were discussed. there is an ongoing dispute between the neighbors and the church. we're not aware of any active planning code violations or complaints. the complaints that have been listed in evidence presented were complaints to the department of building inspection and complaints about implementation of their code. we have researched those because there was evidence it was raised. the majority of those cases are closed. there were some cases that were not closed and where dbi have sent letters out to the project
sponsors. in this case, when dbi sends these notices, they send notices to verify allegations. the fact the notices were sent this not necessarily indicate there were actual violations. we have consulted with the deputy director in charge of enforcement. he has said that there are no active enforcement cases or problems that dbi is aware of. president chiu: are you confident the wait is sustainable? >> that is outside of my authority or the commission's authority. it is a land use entitlement and the structural issues would be investigated by dbi subsequent to the board of holding the cu. president chiu: you're saying that decision is for the future but not one that has been evaluated yet.
>> it is not authorized -- relevant to the authorization or the birth -- building permit. president chiu: thank you. supervisor avalos: do you think the information that president chiu pointed to, if that evidence had been presented, there would have been a different outcome? >> i could not speculate on the commission's outcome if additional evidence were provided. supervisor avalos:. staff make up -- did staff make a recommendation? >> we found this compelling. we found at&t's evidence compelling. the commission acted by that by authorizing with a 6-0 vote. there was one commissioner absent. all the commissioners found evidence to be compelling. supervisor avalos: would staff
recommendation change in the light of the evidence we have on the website? >> i would like to hear the project sponsors but i am -- i am not sure my import -- opinion is that important. there is still evidence to be presented tonight. supervisor avalos: you could consider that evidence relevant? >> i personally am interested in the project sponsor's response. supervisor avalos: sorry. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. i want to raise the same issue i raised with the appellant. that is one of the really frustrating parts of these appeals. supervisor cohen raised the issue a couple weeks ago. it is a he-said she-said thing.
there is a gap in coverage. our expert says this and their expert says that. do we have it within our power to require an independent evaluation that would basically say based on the deck, there is a significant gap in coverage or there is not. we will rely on what an independents evaluator says. >> you as a body could with a two-thirds vote overturned the planning commission's decision to approve and with a subsequent vote be able to authorize and nail -- a new cu. if there are outstanding issues, it can require
additional modifications to determine -- be determined by staff. if it meets whatever they said at the outcome, then we do issue a cu. supervisor wiener: we could have an independent evaluation based on the data. president chiu: thank you. why do we hear from the project sponsor -- don't we hear from the project sponsor? >> that afternoon. -- good afternoon. i am joined today by gordon
spencer, who is our radiofrequency engineer for at&t mobility. i am also joined by bill hammond, a licensed professional engineer with the city california whose firm conducted the radiofrequency testing and prepare the reports that are part of your package. at&t was granted a conditional use permit to place and new six panel wireless facility at 2041 larkin street which is known as church of the fellowship of all peoples. the panel antennas will be placed inside the church. there are 50 pounds each. for a total of 300 pounds. the necessary equipment will be housed in a room on the second floor outside of the public view. under the city's wireless telecommunication services, this is a preference one location.
it is a preferred structure, it is a public structure located within an fh 3 zoning district. -- rh 3 sunning district. we looked at 23 different sites in the corresponding area. this was the only preference one location to serve the residents of this area. the subject location is the least intrusive means by which at&t mobility can close the existing significant servers coverage gap in the area. a gap that is caused in part by the demand from at&t customers for mobile data usage in the area. president chiu: could you address the issue that we're wondering about, your own marketing materials and how that does not jibe with what you have laid out in front of planning? >> certainly. wet they are referring to, i have not seen it.
i think they're referring to is our consumer website. there is a big difference between coverage and capacity. what they're looking at and what they're referencing is coverage in the area. on our five-year plan which i have that we submit every six months to the planning department which looks at our projections for five years where we are placing new sites, where we will be upgrading existing sites, this is an upgrade to an existing antenna. they create 360 degrees. we have a lot of antennas in the area. the coverage is showing good coverage. the problem is, the way that we direct the signals on the antennas are very difficult to direct signals which is why we're replacing them and upgrading them for panel antennas. on the antennas -- these are 4g lte generation.
this is where the devices are going. when you try to use a 4g phone on a 2g network you run into problems. this is a capacity issue. there are qadry adds that the appellants may have missed. because it does depend on different types -- times of the day and what is being run over that network. and there is a lot of varying factors that i am sure have, gets on that website. i present a coverage vs. capacity issue. when we talk about capacity we are talking about the number of people on the network, we're talking about what is being downloaded, everything from checking your muni stop to win the next bus will come or
downloading netflix or live streaming tv. everything a customer happens to be downloading at the time they are on the network. >> i am still confused in part because the at&t coverage area you're talking about does refer to 4g data, and you seem to have coverage. the document you submitted to planning that talks about the gaps in coverage refer to coverage, not to capacity. this coverage capacity section i am trying to understand. >> ok, so. i'm looking for the question. president chiu: you're suggesting there is a capacity vs. coverage capacity -- difference. that is what your marketing materials referred to. >> we have coverage.
we have six to eight omni antennas within this circle. we had an independent third- party go out and do a study. based on their own data, nothing obtained from us and look at the interference that is being caused by the antennas. when you go out you will have four or five bars. because of the antennas are shooting signals. you have eight different antennas shooting signals 360 degrees. panel antennas focus the energy, send it toward the horizon and are able to place those signals where they need to go as opposed to sporadically shooting them in the area. you are going to have five bars in the area because there are these antennas shooting.
there is -- when you get, when you pick up a call on broadway and get down to lombard street, the antenna is picking up your signal. when you get to the lombard street and you are out of the signal coverage area, the neck sant'anna does not know where to pick you up because you are supposed to be bouncing from antenna to a antenna which is what these antennas allow us to do which is where we're upgrading. it is a much better use, directed use of our frequency than having our signals emitted by an 360 degrees directional. president chiu: ok. i appreciate your trying to create a distinction. if i am the consumer going to your web site, it seems to me that there is a lot of good coverage in this neighborhood, right? there's nothing that indicates you do not have capacity or
coverage. either the marketing materials are different from what you're saying to planning or there is some discrepancy. do not see where we're going? >> the maps we submitted to the planning department, they talk about demand and high usage periods. they're looking at a signal to noise ratio. not just coverage. >> it says coverage during high demand periods. we are comparing apples to apples, right? >> the map, no. there not apples to apples. the maps on the website are pure coverage. there are disclaimers on that map as well that is explained as coverage under optimal conditions. the maps we submitted our showing coverage given the level of demand from the users who are trying to use it in that area. at a particular time of day.
we made a distinction between high demand periods and low demand periods. we're looking at apples and oranges. the maps we submitted show you the capacity constraints as well as the coverage issues. president chiu: i do not want to belabor this point. folks understand the point i am making. from your marketing materials it seems like he did not have coverage materials. it seems to have many alleged coverage issues and this is what is confusing to us. >> we have a capacity related coverage issue. we brought bill hammond to do analysis so we could give you the information separate and independent from anything in our systems and the best way to solve this is to have him come up and explain what tests he did and what he found. would that be helpful? president chiu: sure. >> ok. >> good afternoon, supervisors.
my name is bill hammett. i manage a firm of 17. our clients include at&t and their competitors, landlords, and engineers. this is to look at what is the effect, what is the impact, what is available in a network? we do not do network design, we do not designed th the cell sit. we looked at the package as well like the other experts said. at&t nor other carriers tend to want to divulge their own performance data. unlike the other experts, we went out and took measurements to see what is going on out there. we wanted to determine, is there
a service problem in that area? where we started was the same maps that you're talking about in the application materials from at&t. this one is the before condition. it is talking about service at the peak time and it also has another one for after. what we did is we overlaid this to in order to define the area where the proposed upgrade of the micro-cell, the area where that is supposed to based on at&t's material show an improvement in service. we used a telephone that includes software that ericsson developed and has put out by